Is There a Difference Between Grain-Fed and Grass-Fed Beef?

Mar 17, 2025

raw meat with green leaves — Photo by Cindie Hansen on Unsplash

In last week’s article, we explored the definitions of health, which is going to be a useful tool for the question of focus in this one.

Even in the medical literature, defining health seems like it’s too hot to touch with any specifics. It’s easier to put health in contrast with disease and illness, which is why most of the literature includes phrases in definitions of health such as “free of disease”.

Still, we found some useful key concepts, and one way to frame something as healthy or not is if it adds to our quality of life, if it adds to our ability to reach our potential. (Even then, what do we mean by “potential”? Is this biological potential in the sense of “optimum”, like keeping the machine running as best as possible for as long as possible?)

Before I take another run down this Slip N’ Slide, the point is that we’re inundated with messaging about what’s healthy and unhealthy.

As one example, there are different choirs that often chant the same refrain these days: that grass-fed beef is better and healthier than grain-fed beef. You’ll hear this as much from certain circles in the health and fitness space as you will from marketers and laypeople. Like anything else, when a belief starts becoming so ubiquitous and popularized that it becomes standard advice that every Tom, Dick, and Harry are actively promoting, it should make us wonder if it’s true, especially when and if someone can’t articulate why it’s the case.

SO, is there a difference between grain-fed and grass-fed beef?

Actually, as it turns out, YES, there are differences.

However, whether the differences result in one being healthier than the other depends on how you want to approach the definition of health, and fortunately, there are couple of robust studies looking at this question from different angles.

One study specifically looked at the “Fatty Acid Composition of Grain- and Grass-Fed Beef and Their Nutritional Value and Health Implication”.1

This study compared results of eight previous studies that investigated the fat composition of varieties of beef, from different breeds and locations, including American Steer, Angus, Asturian Valley Cattle, Hanwoo (of South Korea), Australian beef, Alentejano purebred (a Portuguese breed), Hereford, and Angus-Hereford. The countries that raised the cattle were the US, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea. The studies also measured the nutrient profiles of different cuts, from sirloin, ribeye, and ground beef.

They also used 100-gram (about 3.5 oz samples), which is considered a standard serving, though not a practical one for meat. Mickey D’s, for example, has their quarter-pounder, which is a smaller serving for the industry. (I worked at a fast-food restaurant where the kids’ hamburger serving was a quarter-pound.)

These are important points to note. These countries are largely democratic ones that follow similar practices and have similar laws governing their beef production, from raising, grazing, feeding, to slaughter, processing, and selling, thereby giving us something of a homogenous and consistent starting point, though there are many significant and notable differences in some of these practices.

Unfortunately, there’s not a lot of credible information from reputable sources available about what cattle feed really contains. (I will continue digging around this area.) Grain-fed beef is really fed “grain-based” feed. However, it’s likely a mix of different grains, including wheat, oat, barley, rice, among others, as each grain has its own strengths and weaknesses in nutritional value. There are also reports that animal feed contains a variety of animals and animal parts, from fish to the same animal that’s eating it. The simple fact is that there really is no way for the average consumer to know what livestock is eating. We are all taking everyone else at their word.

Obviously, energy density is different between the two diets. Grain-based diets are more processed and refined, so cattle can more easily meet their energy requirements as well as overconsume energy, leading to the marbling of the meat, which is intramuscular fat; by the way, in humans, a similar condition is possible and is “associated with a wide panel of metabolic risk factors,”2 so if an animal has marbled muscles, it is likely in a similar metabolic state; that is, the animal itself is already showing signs of metabolic diseases.

Grain-based diets also do lead to differences in absolute/total amounts of fat as well as the fatty acid composition of the meat. As expected, grain-fed beef has greater amounts of total fat. A grain-fed Hanwoo sirloin and a grain-fed Angus-Hereford ground both measure around 25% total fat (again, per 100 grams). By contrast, the total fat content in the same grass-fed cuts were about 6% and 11%, respectively.

Always, with any food, with greater total fat comes greater amounts of saturated fat. In these same cuts, the grain-fed samples—the Hanwoo sirloin and a grain-fed Angus-Hereford ground—had about 9.2 grams and 10 grams of saturated fat; to say it another way, about 10% of the total fat from the grain-fed beef was saturated fat.

Their grass-fed counterparts had about 2.5 grams and 5 grams, respectively, or about 2.5-5% of total fat was saturated fat. That might not sound very meaningful, but that’s a huge difference, upwards of 50% per 100-gram serving. So, if you were to get grain-fed beef, you could expect up to double the amount of saturated fat compared with the same or similar portion with a grass-fed cut. This is the consistent trend among total fat and saturated fat content in grain-fed and grass-fed beef among all samples. Surprisingly, at least to me, ground beef was among the fattest of all the sample cuts.

Saturated fat is one of the most implicated molecules in cardiovascular disease (CVD).3 It’s transported through the body in LDL cholesterol, which is small enough to get stuck in the arterial lining. This happens to and with everyone, and it starts early. How early is still up for debate, but “it is known that initial atherosclerotic lesions of coronary arteries are recognizable in infancy.”4 And there are cases that have identified arterial plaques in fetuses but the “controversy” is whether this comes from the mother’s diet, is hereditary, or is something regarding epigenetic expression due to other environmental factors (like a mother who smokes). Most likely, we are all born with some of these pavers in place, and then our diets govern our exposure and the rate of CVD development.

Remember that CVD is the number one killer of humans on the planet. Recommendations and guidelines say to limit saturated fat to 10% of your total energy/calories.5 (The American Heart Association (the AHA) recommends capping it at 6% of calories.) 10% of 2,500 calories—what an average man might eat—is 250; 250 calories of saturated fat is about 27 grams. That’s a helluva lot of saturated fat, approaching minimally essential levels of total fat. 10% of 1,800 calories—what an average woman might eat—is 180 calories, coming to 20 grams of saturated fat, which is an absolute number the AHA recommends if you want to be sure you’re reducing it in your diet.

For a more practical example and to give us context, for a person that routinely eats a 16-ounce steak (more than 450 grams), they might be getting up to 45 grams of saturated fat if that steak is grain-fed beef. In that one single food item of that one single meal. A grass-fed steak could still get between 11-22 grams based on the percentages above. Remember, that’s just for the meat. Often, especially in restaurants, steak is cooked in butter or oil, and the butter might double these numbers.

It’s easy to see why men develop—and usually die from—CVD before women. We just eat more in absolute terms, and men tend to eat more meat, which also means we consume way more saturated fat. Ladies, though, are roughly about a decade behind us.

For myself, and for these reasons, I keep saturated fat intake at an absolute number, as low as possible, really. There are also discussions and debates about the source of saturated fat as being the issue—that is, if it comes from animals or plants.

Another study looked at the two types of beef in similar as well as other ways: “A review of fatty acid profiles and antioxidant content in grass-fed and grain-fed beef”.6

The authors note a couple of points.

One is that grain-fed beef has higher concentrations of one monounsaturated fatty acid, one that is associated with better metabolic outcomes, and grass-fed beef has higher levels of another.
The data “shows no significant change to the overall concentration of n-6 FAs [omega-6 fatty acids] between feeding regimens, although grass-fed beef consistently shows a higher concentrations of n-3 FAs [omega-3s] as compared to grain-fed contemporaries, creating a more favorable n-6: n-3 ratio.” This ratio is important because having a very high concentration of omega-6 fats can interfere with synthesis and metabolism of omega-3s, which is why you might hear some people screaming about the “dangers” of certain oils. (Omega-6 fats are needed, but some people eat too much of them and too little of omega-3s that they are effectively out of balance in this regard.)
Also important to note: “Interestingly, there is no consistent difference in total SFA [saturated fatty acid] content between these two feeding regimens. Those SFA's considered to be more detrimental to serum cholesterol levels… were higher in grain-fed beef as compared to grass-fed contemporaries in 60% of the studies reviewed.” That is, the types and proportions of SFAs are similar between the two kinds of beef, but again, total saturated fat is higher in the grain-fed group.
Like the first study, this one also found that grass-fed beef is lower in total fat content than grain-fed beef.
“Grass-fed beef is also higher in precursors for Vitamin A and E and cancer fighting antioxidants such as GT [glutathione] and SOD [superoxide dismutase] activity as compared to grain-fed contemporaries.”

Although I wouldn’t hang my hat on this last point about vitamins and antioxidants, this study also shows, overall, that grass-fed beef is a better choice than grain-fed in terms of micronutrients. (Because the antioxidant content is higher in grass-fed versus grain-fed, it doesn’t mean that it’s high absolutely. It’s relatively high between the two groups. If you want some antioxidants, just eat some fruits and veggies, but if you want to hedge your bets, it is higher in grass-fed beef.)

Both studies also pointed out that the fatty acid composition affects the taste of the beef, describing grass-fed as, well, “grassy” and earthy. The traditional grain-fed beef is typically more palatable and more desirable. Honestly, it’s what most Americans, at least, are used to, but it looks like grass-fed really is a better choice. There’s a typical perception that healthier food doesn’t taste as good as unhealthier fare, and the trends here seem to perpetuate that idea.

These two studies have compared the two types of beef largely from a fat-centric perspective, but another study7 looked at the two through a larger lens, one that considers each’s energy requirements and environmental impacts of producing each. There’s a lot more data that would need to be covered, but here are the authors’ takeaways:

We found that varying grass-fed and grain-fed production systems resulted in different environmental effects. The conventional system [that is, grain-based] produced the lowest greenhouse gas footprint but required the highest energy input. The grass-fed for 20 mo [months] used the least amount of water but produced the greatest greenhouse gas. In conclusion, this study illustrated the complexities underpinning beef sustainability; no system resulted in absolute economic, meat quality, and environmental superiority.

In last week’s exploration of the definition of health, one of the key components was something that allows us to reach or maintain our potential. Another component was something that puts us in balance with ourselves and our environments. Any and every food system has its energy and environmental costs, and one way we might be able to identify a food system as healthy for the environment is if it’s sustainable, and it’s not clear from any of these studies what the answer is in this regard.

SO, regarding the question of whether there is a difference between grass-fed and grain-fed beef, the answer is yes, and it appears that grass-fed is a healthier choice than grain-fed beef, as it will reduce your exposure to saturated fat when compared to grain-fed beef. Grass-fed beef also has a more robust polyunsaturated fatty acid profile and a smidge more in terms of a couple of micronutrients, and it has a reputation for being leaner (less total fat), which appears to be true. However, the grass-diet ultimately affects the taste and some of the look of the meat, which might turn you off to it altogether. Still, if you’re a beef eater, I’d caution you to keep your portions on the lower side and keep them infrequent, especially if you’re going with grain-fed, but if you’re intent on the red meat as a fixture of your diet, if you can afford it and enjoy the taste enough, go with the leanest cuts of the grass-fed that you can find.

The Flexitorium by Joseph Anthony

Discussion about this post